AuthorTopic: Would Guns have stopped VT? (Read 8566 times)

Our current way of doing things is probably the best.. but I do think people with a license to carry a handgun should be able to carry on a college campus. I would only concede that these people carrying on a college campus be 21 years or older.

I know if I was trying to go on a rampage, I might think twice about it if I knew many people carried guns.

Also, it's not like the people that are authorized to carry a weapon are individuals that would actually use it in an unlawful manner. To get a license to carry you must be investigated by the FBI and deemed worthy to carry. They don't give people that are mentally not stable, felons, or drug dealers license to carry.

Even if they let people carry on college campuses the only thing that would change is that people that have been investigated by the FBI will be armed on campus. NOT individuals that would use the weapon unlawfully.

If someone wants to rampage a campus, they are going to do it. But it might deter someone from doing so if they knew that they would only get a couple of shots off before they met opposition from an individual with a valid license to carry.

So in summary what I feel needs to be done is, keep the current laws, you can buy guns to meet the constitutional right to carry, then put gun owners through investigations to deem them trustworthy and stable if they want to be able to carry the weapon.

Then invoke a law to require a person to be 21 years of age to carry on a college campus and of course they must also be licensed to carry.

If you start regulating who can own a gun, then you are directly going against our constitutional right to bear arms.

But if it is regulated anyway, then guns will still be attainable. They may be harder to attain, but through robbery of individuals with guns, or black markets guns will be available. Only now the robber is absolutley sure you won't have a gun. Thereby emboldening any criminal that is able to attain a gun. And when such criminal commits a crime they will be far more successful. IMO

Current law bans guns on school grounds (and within 1000 ft.). See comments and links above.

If you can prove that an increase of gun ownership would decrease the aggregate amount of deaths, i would consider it. But from my anecdotal experience, this would not be possible.

Actually, you need to prove the opposite. It's a Constitutional right.

To own and do what you will on your property. Not to bring with you into my classroom.

Let me check, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people ot keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amend.

No mention of a classroom there.

It is ambiguous. The founders left much of the constitution ambiguous for a reason. To me, this is a living document designed to ebb and flow to a degree as times change. Actually, i don't think the constitution as well as the Amendments as we know it, were ment by the founders to be used in such a way. The founders would roll over in their grave if they saw how we were still using this antiquated document. Thats not to say we should start all over evey generation, but I think every 50 years or so, we should reexamine the Constitution in a more critical way, learning from previous versions. People may think this is radical, but i dont think so...its not hard to imagine - if you try.

In this situation, the right to a gun does not trump the aggregate safety provided by limiting these rights no one's own property and by keeping it out of classrooms.

Do you think another student with a gun would have stopped Cho? he was not holding people up he was just shooting so it is likely that people would have died before anyone with a gun could gain control of the situation. also b/c cho killed himself i am not sure he would be frightened by a gun. yes there is a chance somebody could shoot him before he shot more people but bc he was going to die anyways, and he seemed REALLY angry i think there is a good chance he would have tried to shoot a gunman before the gunman had a chance to shoot him. maybe if he didn't see him, the gunman could shoot him, but that may require a lot of skill?

Do you think another student with a gun would have stopped Cho? he was not holding people up he was just shooting so it is likely that people would have died before anyone with a gun could gain control of the situation. also b/c cho killed himself i am not sure he would be frightened by a gun. yes there is a chance somebody could shoot him before he shot more people but bc he was going to die anyways, and he seemed REALLY angry i think there is a good chance he would have tried to shoot a gunman before the gunman had a chance to shoot him. maybe if he didn't see him, the gunman could shoot him, but that may require a lot of skill?

MAIN POINT: i don't think Cho would be a fraid of another gun.

First, we'll never know. Second, the 2002 incident showed the guy was afraid of another gun. Third, it doesn't take much skill to shoot somebody in the back. But yes, Cho would still have shot (maybe not killed) at least the first person.

Do you think another student with a gun would have stopped Cho? he was not holding people up he was just shooting so it is likely that people would have died before anyone with a gun could gain control of the situation. also b/c cho killed himself i am not sure he would be frightened by a gun. yes there is a chance somebody could shoot him before he shot more people but bc he was going to die anyways, and he seemed REALLY angry i think there is a good chance he would have tried to shoot a gunman before the gunman had a chance to shoot him. maybe if he didn't see him, the gunman could shoot him, but that may require a lot of skill?

MAIN POINT: i don't think Cho would be a fraid of another gun.

you don't know if the guy in 2002 was suicidal

First, we'll never know. Second, the 2002 incident showed the guy was afraid of another gun. Third, it doesn't take much skill to shoot somebody in the back. But yes, Cho would still have shot (maybe not killed) at least the first person.

Do you think another student with a gun would have stopped Cho? he was not holding people up he was just shooting so it is likely that people would have died before anyone with a gun could gain control of the situation. also b/c cho killed himself i am not sure he would be frightened by a gun. yes there is a chance somebody could shoot him before he shot more people but bc he was going to die anyways, and he seemed REALLY angry i think there is a good chance he would have tried to shoot a gunman before the gunman had a chance to shoot him. maybe if he didn't see him, the gunman could shoot him, but that may require a lot of skill?

MAIN POINT: i don't think Cho would be a fraid of another gun.

you don't know if the guy in 2002 was suicidal

First, we'll never know. Second, the 2002 incident showed the guy was afraid of another gun. Third, it doesn't take much skill to shoot somebody in the back. But yes, Cho would still have shot (maybe not killed) at least the first person.

I'm just not sure of the wisdom of adding guns to the already tumultuous setting that is a college campus. Students are partying, drinking, fooling around, not to mention oftentimes emotionally unstable. Even for those trained and responsible, the larger student population has to be taken into consideration. Stupid antics become a whole lot more grave when firearms are involved; and as a recent college grad, I can attest that campuses are full of stupid antics.

making it illegal to carry means that only those who are willing to break the law would have guns on campus.

i'm not saying give every college kid a gun, but a situation in which professors or other administrators are allowed to be armed if they so chose might not be the worst idea in the world.

i don't carry a gun, and i wouldn't know how to and it wouldn't be safe *edit- for me to do so*. but a situation in which only those willing to break the law have access to a firearm is not a good thing from my way of thinking.